Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

On 28/06/2016 14:13, David MacDonald wrote:
> I think we can do whatever we need to do to ensure the web is
> accessible. We have a mandate in the charter to ensure mobile is
> accessible. That's why we are all donating months of our lives to the
> Mobile Task Force.
>
>  If there is a huge hole in WCAG 2.1 that says, "Hey we have a bunch of
> new SCs to meet for mobile, but you don't need to do any of this because
> the conforming alternative clause allows you to rely on the large screen
> view" then what is the point?

You're conflating different issues. There are sites that offer a 
desktop-optimized version and a mobile-optimized version (triggered 
either by having media queries/reacting to viewport size, or by doing UA 
sniffing etc), and mechanisms to switch between the two.  Both versions 
can be used on a mobile device, though the desktop one will likely not 
be as nicely usable. This is not akin to saying "if you can't use the 
mobile site, you need to go and use your laptop/desktop computer to 
access this". Mobile/tablet CAN access the "desktop" version (and as per 
note 4, the mechanism for the user to switch to it if need be must be 
there).

> We certainly can, and should plug this hole if we think it's important.
>
> If you are thinking of a more global statement about conforming
> alternatives then feel free to suggest one. My  suggestion is simply to
> add a line to the understanding doc on conforming alternative that says
> something like "...same functionality includes functions optimized for
> screen size. Therefore functions optimized for large screen cannot be
> used as a conforming alternative for functions optimized for small screen"

As Jason already mentioned, if the actual requirement (coming from Low 
Vision TF and probably COGA) will be that layout/functionality needs to 
adapt to different screen sizes, then the issue is moot (as then even 
the desktop-optimized version would need to at least behave reasonably 
on mobile/tablet devices too).

> I know it's not perfect but its a start and we can fix the wording to
> accomplish our goal the not forcing blind people to go home and use
> their desktops because the mobile view doesn't work.

It's not about it not being perfect. It's about the impossibility (in my 
view) of special-casing the concept of alternatives. A site can either 
offer an accessible alternative, or it cannot. And because there are 
very valid situations (with complex widgets etc) that do indeed require 
a completely separate alternative that works better for certain user 
groups, I don't think removing the concept of alternatives altogether is 
possible either.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2016 13:52:18 UTC